porpoise wrote:I still haven't seen a sutta quote which clearly describes consciousness arising in dependence on form.

How about:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. MN148

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since consciousness at the eye arises dependent on the eye and FORMS that this is an instance of consciousness arising in dependence on FORM. I think that FORM has two different meanings. FORM can be the object which stimulates the eye and in modern terms it is usually taken to be light and then one could paraphrase, "Dependent on the eye and light there arises consciousness at the eye." FORM can also be taken to mean materiality like in Nama rupa. At least that is how I understand FORM as having two meanings. I believe that porpoise is using FORM in the Nama rupa sense while you are replying with FORM in the light sense.....I guess......chownah

Alex123 wrote:Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. MN148

I think we're looking at different contexts here. Contact ( phasso ) is functionally the meeting of eye, form and eye-consciousness. But in dependent origination contact is described in structural terms: contact arises in dependence on the 6 bases ( salyatanam ) which in turn arise in dependence on mind-body ( nama-rupa ).

why are you bringing up contact in DO? DO is just an explanation of what things depend on other things, and what things are not possible unless other things are there for them to depend on. DO does not contain all the variables and that is not its job.

I think the original question was about the relationship between brain and consciousness. What I'm saying is that Alex's quote describes functionally how specific instances of consciousness arise, whereas DO describes structurally what needs to be in place for that to happen, ie the 6 bases which depend on nama-rupa.But DO also describes how nama-rupa arises in dependence on consciousness ( more accurately the process of consciousness ), the earlier quote I gave from DN15 seems quite specific about this.

What's the point in arguing ? We all go round and round in circles in these threads, sometimes giving dodgy ''evidence'', sometimes plunging into this or that form of intellectual proliferation, and nobody seems much wiser on the subject.

I recall Ajahn Sumedho saying in a talk at Amaravati Monastery: "What's reality ? Any opinion about reality is not reality, its an opinion"

So for me its better to just relax, meditate, and focus on practising Dhamma in the here and now.

The Buddha said :

the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves."

Thank you, Aloka, for one of the most sensible and pertinent posts on this thread.

I second that

In my opinion the "great rebirth debate" is nothing more that a great distraction debate

Buddha tailored his teachings to his audience. To some he taught rebirth, to others he didnt. At the end of the day all that matter is the practice of the noble eightfold path, the full understanding of the four noble truths and the removal of ignorance.

Some of us use the teaching of rebirth, some of us don't but we are all still Buddhists

Regardless of how if we have a view of rebirth or not we still practice what the Buddha taught and he ultimately taught that his teachings are only a raft, not an end in itself

"I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to. Listen, monks, and heed well what I shall say" — "Yes, Lord," replied the monks. and the Blessed One spoke thus:

"Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: 'This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.' Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like?'

"What do you think about it, O monks? Will this man by acting thus, do what should be done with a raft?" — "No, Lord" — "How then, monks, would he be doing what ought to be done with a raft? Here, monks, having got across and arrived at the other shore, the man thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, and laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not pull it up now to the dry land or let it float in the water, and then go as I please?' By acting thus, monks, would that man do what should be done with a raft.

"In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to.

14. "You, O monks, who understand the Teaching's similitude to a raft, you should let go even (good) teachings,[14] how much more false ones!

clw_uk wrote:Some of us use the teaching of rebirth, some of us don't but we are all still Buddhists

Of course. What I don't get is the need some people have to marginalise these teachings, the need to prove they're irrelevant / misunderstood / later additions etc. I don't get the need to promote a very particular version of the Dhamma, even to the extent of setting up new forums to do so.

clw_uk wrote:Some of us use the teaching of rebirth, some of us don't but we are all still Buddhists

Of course.

Just to be clear, Spiny: Do you regard positively the traditional teachings on kamma and rebirth?

What I don't get is the need some people have to marginalise these teachings, the need to prove they're irrelevant / misunderstood / later additions etc. I don't get the need to promote a very particular version of the Dhamma, even to the extent of setting up new forums to do so.

clw_uk wrote:Some of us use the teaching of rebirth, some of us don't but we are all still Buddhists

Of course.

Just to be clear, Spiny: Do you regard positively the traditional teachings on kamma and rebirth?

What I don't get is the need some people have to marginalise these teachings, the need to prove they're irrelevant / misunderstood / later additions etc. I don't get the need to promote a very particular version of the Dhamma, even to the extent of setting up new forums to do so.

I think I do understand it, though. It's rather controversial.

I'm open to both traditional and contemporary interpretations, but I don't feel a need to reject one in favour of the other. I sense that in some cases the rejection of traditional interpretations stems from aversion rather than from an objective reading of the suttas - in which case I think a more honest response would be to adopt secular Buddhism.

I'm open to both traditional and contemporary interpretations, but I don't feel a need to reject one in favour of the other. I sense that in some cases the rejection of traditional interpretations stems from aversion rather than from an objective reading of the suttas - in which case I think a more honest response would be to adopt secular Buddhism.

And one can easily say that those who have a view of rebirth are clinging to a sense of self and clinging to doctrines and views, but as this thread has shown (by nearly approaching 200 posts) saying such things to each other gets us no where.

Instead we should just focus on dukkha and practice to overcome it in the here and now and help each other to do so, we should promote unity in the sangha and not argue and argue.

In ultimate terms rebirth isn't important to those who accept it and to those who don't since we should all practice to let go and stop giving birth to "i am" in there here and now ... And if that stops the birth of "I am" in some future life even better, in ultimate terms if we all focus on the practice in the here and now then we are all winners

Even If rebirth is true, or Valhalla or oblivion it's all not self. It's not "your" death, your rebirth or your oblivion.

Rebirth, Realist fact or just a view ... Or both, should be let go of.

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

As this thread has popped up again, I just can't resist another Ajahn Sumedho quote ....

The only thing that’s certain about the future—the death of the body—is something we try to ignore. Just thinking about the word death stops the mind, doesn’t it? It does for me. It’s not particularly polite or politically correct to speak of death in casual conversation. What is death? What will happen when I die? Not knowing upsets us. But it is unknown, isn’t it? We don’t know what will happen when the body dies.

We have various theories—like reincarnation or being rewarded by a better rebirth or being punished by a worse birth. Some people speculate that once you’ve attained human birth, you may still be reborn as a lower creature. And then there’s the school that says no, once you’ve taken birth in the human form, then you cannot be reborn as a lower creature. Or the belief in oblivion—once you’re dead, you’re dead. That’s it. Nothing left. Finito. The truth of the matter is that nobody really knows. So we often just ignore it or suppress it.

But this is all happening in the now. We’re thinking of the concept of death in the present. The way the word death affects consciousness is like this. This is knowing not knowing in the now. It’s not trying to prove any theory. It’s knowing: the breath is like this; the body like this; the moods and mental states are like this. This is developing the path. Saying “like this” is just a way of reminding oneself to see this moment as it is rather than to be caught in some idea that we’ve got to do something or find something or control something or get rid of something.

But this is all happening in the now. We’re thinking of the concept of death in the present. The way the word death affects consciousness is like this. This is knowing not knowing in the now. It’s not trying to prove any theory. It’s knowing: the breath is like this; the body like this; the moods and mental states are like this. This is developing the path. Saying “like this” is just a way of reminding oneself to see this moment as it is rather than to be caught in some idea that we’ve got to do something or find something or control something or get rid of something.

This is exactly my point. Instead of arguing about if rebirth is real or not I think it would be more skilful to focus on our reaction to the view it's self, do we avert from it or cling to it etc

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

But this is all happening in the now. We’re thinking of the concept of death in the present. The way the word death affects consciousness is like this. This is knowing not knowing in the now. It’s not trying to prove any theory. It’s knowing: the breath is like this; the body like this; the moods and mental states are like this. This is developing the path. Saying “like this” is just a way of reminding oneself to see this moment as it is rather than to be caught in some idea that we’ve got to do something or find something or control something or get rid of something.

This is exactly my point. Instead of arguing about if rebirth is real or not I think it would be more skilful to focus on our reaction to the view itself, do we avert from it or cling to it etc

clw_uk wrote:And one can easily say that those who have a view of rebirth are clinging to a sense of self and clinging to doctrines and views, but as this thread has shown (by nearly approaching 200 posts) saying such things to each other gets us no where.

Instead we should just focus on dukkha and practice to overcome it in the here and now and help each other to do so, we should promote unity in the sangha and not argue and argue.

And in order to do that, we do have to cling to a view - namely, Right View.

Rebirth, Realist fact or just a view ... Or both, should be let go of.

The issue is, when.One shouldn't let go of the raft before one has crossed the river.

clw_uk wrote: Instead of arguing about if rebirth is real or not I think it would be more skilful to focus on our reaction to the view it's self, do we avert from it or cling to it etc

The great bulk of this debate isn't about whether rebirth is "real" or not, it's about how the suttas should be interpreted - and in fact many of the topics on this forum are concerned directly or indirectly with sutta interpretation. Though of course people's underlying beliefs and disbeliefs inform their opinions.

So on that basis rebirth is an entirely valid topic for discussion, not something to be swept under the carpet because a few people feel uncomfortable about it or want to marginalise it, or whatever.

If rebirth isn't something you want to discuss, then there is no obligation to post in this thread.

clw_uk wrote:Rebirth, Realist fact or just a view ... Or both, should be let go of.

I think my belief in rebirth can have a positive influence on my practice, so while it still provides utility, I will continue to use it as a motivator. I'm not about to go on a crusade to make other accept my beliefs however, I think you're quite right in your assertion that such things are foolish

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

clw_uk wrote: Instead of arguing about if rebirth is real or not I think it would be more skilful to focus on our reaction to the view it's self, do we avert from it or cling to it etc

The great bulk of this debate isn't about whether rebirth is "real" or not, it's about how the suttas should be interpreted - and in fact many of the topics on this forum are concerned directly or indirectly with sutta interpretation. Though of course people's underlying beliefs and disbeliefs inform their opinions.

So on that basis rebirth is an entirely valid topic for discussion, not something to be swept under the carpet because a few people feel uncomfortable about it or want to marginalise it, or whatever.

If rebirth isn't something you want to discuss, then there is no obligation to post in this thread.

I don't see any harm in someone including an opinion in this thread (in the "Open Dhamma" forum) about the various attitudes that people might have towards rebirth belief - and then offering a suggestion about how that could be addressed . I haven't seen any rule which states that posters aren't allowed to do that.

clw_uk wrote:And one can easily say that those who have a view of rebirth are clinging to a sense of self and clinging to doctrines and views, but as this thread has shown (by nearly approaching 200 posts) saying such things to each other gets us no where.

Instead we should just focus on dukkha and practice to overcome it in the here and now and help each other to do so, we should promote unity in the sangha and not argue and argue.

And in order to do that, we do have to cling to a view - namely, Right View.

Rebirth, Realist fact or just a view ... Or both, should be let go of.

The issue is, when.One shouldn't let go of the raft before one has crossed the river.

And yet Buddha taught two types of right view, right view with taints (rebirth view) and right view without taints (wisdom)... Both can lead to nibbna but not all need the first to have the second.

And no one should let go of the raft till the far shore is reached however one should see the raft as it is. As Anathapindika said

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have."

"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."

"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress."

"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."

When this had been said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. Anathapindika the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed... at a loss for words, got up & went to where the Blessed One was staying. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was seated there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his conversation with the wanderers.

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

The great bulk of this debate isn't about whether rebirth is "real" or not, it's about how the suttas should be interpreted - and in fact many of the topics on this forum are concerned directly or indirectly with sutta interpretation. Though of course people's underlying beliefs and disbeliefs inform their opinions.

So on that basis rebirth is an entirely valid topic for discussion, not something to be swept under the carpet because a few people feel uncomfortable about it or want to marginalise it, or whatever.

If rebirth isn't something you want to discuss, then there is no obligation to post in this post

Doses the validity of rebirth impact on your practice of buddhadhamma?

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

clw_uk wrote:Doses the validity of rebirth impact on your practice of buddhadhamma?

I can't speak for him, but the validity of it certainly is an important part of my Saddha.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

clw_uk wrote: Instead of arguing about if rebirth is real or not I think it would be more skilful to focus on our reaction to the view it's self, do we avert from it or cling to it etc

The great bulk of this debate isn't about whether rebirth is "real" or not, it's about how the suttas should be interpreted - and in fact many of the topics on this forum are concerned directly or indirectly with sutta interpretation. Though of course people's underlying beliefs and disbeliefs inform their opinions.

So on that basis rebirth is an entirely valid topic for discussion, not something to be swept under the carpet because a few people feel uncomfortable about it or want to marginalise it, or whatever.

If rebirth isn't something you want to discuss, then there is no obligation to post in this thread.

I don't see any harm in someone including an opinion in this thread (in the "Open Dhamma" forum) about the various attitudes that people might have towards rebirth belief - and then offering a suggestion about how that could be addressed . I haven't seen any rule which states that posters aren't allowed to do that.

But regularly barging in to a discussion just to say "this discussion is pointless" seems a bit rude to me.